Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

I'd agree with this. That Ayala may be on the side people believe to be
correct doesn't mean that Ayala is therefore preordained to win the debate,
and his failure to win doesn't mean that he's incorrect. It should be
somewhat instructive that Ayala seems to have come unprepared - and it does
lead one to ask, does this mean Ayala just doesn't have a proper grasp of ID
to begin with?

I'd also disagree with this oft-repeated claim that ID's argument is "if
Darwinian evolution didn't do it then God did it!" I see this claimed again
and again, again and again I ask for proof of this claim coming from Behe,
or Dembski, or even the dreaded DI in general.. and again and again it's
never forthcoming.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Marcio Pie <pie@ufpr.br> wrote:

> You have to notice the way the problem was proposed. The debate question
> was "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (so, there isn’t a discussion about
> atheism vs theism). Both sides have to present their case. Regardlesss of
> WLC, Ayala wasn’t able to make the case that it isn’t. That doesn’t mean
> that Craig’s arguments couldn’t be refuted. Rather, Ayala didn’t make an
> effort to understand the argument from the other side so that it could be
> properly addressed.
>
>
>
> Marcio
>
>
>
> *De:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *Em
> nome de *John Walley
> *Enviada em:* quinta-feira, 12 de novembro de 2009 13:06
> *Para:* Thomas Pearson; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> *Assunto:* Re: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
>
>
>
> Yes, just like YEC. If you can't show specific mutuational pathways to
> explain all the history of life then you forfeit the argument and we win by
> default. That proves God did it. I think this is a valid argument on
> complexity but only from a philosophical or theological point of view. And
> on this point WLC and Ayala don't disagree. So what are they debating?
>
>
>
> WLC inisists on enforcing the ID party line which is that design should be
> scientifically detactable and his inferences are scientific and therefore
> atheism is falsified. What is missing from this argument is that maybe God
> did it but not being scientifically detectable so as to intentionally give
> atheists cover for their unbelief.
>
>
>
> WLC said he heard Ayala disparaging ID and he wanted to defend it so
> therein lies the debate. WLC assumes like ID and RTB that if God did it, He
> left His fingerprints on it and we can sleuth Him out and prove Him. He is
> not open to the fact that maybe God hid Himself in His creation so that it
> takes faith to find him which is more consistent with how He revealed
> Himself in the incarnation.
>
>
>
> Again this is not something we should be fighting over.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Thomas Pearson <pearson@utpa.edu>
> *To:* AmericanScientificAffiliation <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Thu, November 12, 2009 9:46:14 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith
>
> On Thursday, November 12, John Walley reported the following quote from
> William Lane Craig:
>
>
>
> >>>First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically because
> he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural
> selection are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity we see
> on earth.<<<
>
>
>
> Do proponents of ID routinely argue that if Darwinian mechanisms of RM and
> NS are inadequate as explanations, that constitutes a failure to disqualify
> ID scientifically? Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default
> position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? It seems
> like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing here?
>
>
>
> Tom Pearson
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Thomas D. Pearson
>
> Department of History & Philosophy
>
> The University of Texas-Pan American
>
> Edinburg, Texas
>
> e-mail: pearson@utpa.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 14:38:01 2009